Equitable Circumstances Prevailed in this One. Boyko v Millican, Case No. G046746 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 6, 2013) (unpublished), a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Ikola, is a case demonstrating that equities will often times dictate routine costs decisions, especially where the lower court had a paradox on costs issues recognized as material by […]
Sanctions–Spahl v. Santiago, Case No. B236369 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 9, 2013) (Unpublished). In this one, plaintiffs sanctioned under CCP § 128.7 argued that defendants' inclusion of a request for dismissal in its motion for sanction rendered the sanctions request invalid. Not so, because simply doing this did not contravene underlying any statutory purpose
Matter Remanded to Demand Costs Under Routine Costs Statutes, Rather than Broader FEHA Costs-Shifting Provision. FEHA does have a broad fee-shifting/costs-shifting statute, even covering expert witness fees and generally tilted in favor of winning plaintiffs. Plaintiff won two FEHA counts through a special jury verdict, but defendant moved for a JNOV on the
Some Not Properly Awardable/Some Not Reasonably Necessary. Prevailing party in Betchart v. Ludwig Betchart, Case No. A131137 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 21, 2013) (unpublished) must have been sorely disappointed when a motion to tax costs reduced a routine costs request from $20,816.87 to $5,370.65. Well, that party was no more happier on
Diaz v. Los Angeles County MTA, Case No. 236856 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 5, 2013) (unpublished) demonstrates that appellate courts will not flinch from reinstating a reduction in appellate printing expenses as a routine costs if the reduction was arbitrary in nature. Here, the lower court reduced a printing cost because
Appellate Panel Faces Many Costs Issues, Siding With Krikorian That Order Denying Motion to Tax Appellate Costs Is Appealable. Although dealing with the propriety of a lower court order awarding respondents $1,037.25 in appellate costs for court reporter fees in preparing a reporter’s transcript, the appellate court affirmed in Williams v. Safire, Case
Ron Sheng, Inc. v. Li, Case No. B239682 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 19, 2013) (unpublished) is a wild landlord-tenant dispute where landlord settled with tenants and tenants won a $200,760 fee award pursuant to an arbitration which was eventually sustained on appeal. However, landlord brought a rescission action claiming that the settlement
Court of Appeal, Facing Some Gnarly Procedural Issues, Finds Trial Court Denial Was Correct. Gunn v. Superior Court (Mai Kai Community Assn.), Case No. G046989 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where an HOA voluntarily dismissed without prejudice an action after a homeowner early on relented and allowed
“Bear Costs” Language In Offer Trumped Surplusage “Plaintiff Can File Costs Bill” In Acceptance Proposal. Whatley-Miller v. Cooper, Case No. B237335 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 15, 2013) (published) is an interesting add-on to the prolific increase in cases we have seen under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 pretrial offer jurisprudence.
No one can dispute under existing California law that a losing FEHA plaintiff can attempt to deflect a costs award by showing hardship–inability to pay. (Knight v. Hayward Unified School Dist., 132 Cal.App.4th 121, 135-136 (2005).) However, the losing plaintiff got hit with a $30,000 costs award in Johnson v. Pacific International
